​A truck ran over Israeli occupation soldiers in occupied Jerusalem yesterday. Four soldiers died and some others were wounded. The driver was a Palestinian father of three. If you would read western newspapers and news outlets, the general tone is that this was a “terrorist” attack that targeted Israelis. Fake news are obviously not something that is limited to social media, it is also often being vented through the bias of the dominant news. That version of the story is not just occulting the reality of the occupation, it is defending it by establishing a link between the resistance of the Palestinians and terrorism. I reacted to this by stating that the Palestinian people has the right to liberate its occupied land by any means that it deems necessary. This was immediately taken by forces who are supportive to Israel in the Flemish nationalist right wing and presented as an endorsement of terrorism. Even Theo Francken, a secretary of state in the federal government, was tweeting about it hysterically. According to him I was glorifying ISIS terrorism and I should be fired from my position as columnist in the newspaper I write for. People who liked my Facebook post were also being threatened and intimidated. Therefor I want to clarify the following 10 points and I hope that this will be helpful to all the people that are confronted with these questions.

Do I stand by my statement? Yes, I fully stand by my initial statement that I consider legitimate, reserved and warranted.

Is this an ISIS attack? All elements that I have at this moment are pointing out that the attack was the work of the Palestinian resistance.

Does it make a difference who executed the attack? One thing is sure, the driver of the truck was a Palestinian citizen living under occupation who attacked a gathering of occupation soldiers in uniform. Regardless of his ideological affiliation, and regardless of his belonging to any organisation, every Palestinian citizen, just as any citizen anywhere in the world, living under illegal military occupation, has the right to resist that occupation, and that right is guaranteed under international law and the Geneva conventions regulating warfare.

What if it is revealed that ISIS executed this attack? That would be very unfortunate. Not because it would be any less legitimate from the perspective of the Palestinian driver, but because ISIS would then be hijacking the Palestinian struggle and besmearing it. ISIS is a fascist terrorist group that is notorious for hijacking the struggles of oppressed peoples (Iraq, Syria, etc...) and turning them into a platform for its own fascist project. I would not want to see that happening in Palestine. Israel, that is now coming under a lot of pressure internationally, is hoping that this would happen because that would enable it to garner support and once again generate sympathy for its colonial occupation policies. However, ISIS did not attack Israel so far, and is too busy killing innocent people mainly in Syria and Iraq and all across the Arab and Muslim world, and from time to time in the west.

Why is the attack legitimate again? Because it took place in an occupied territory and targeted the occupation army. There is no argument whatsoever, ethically nor legally, to claim that it is illegitimate. If the right of resistance is no more recognised, then the people who resisted occupation all through history were criminals. People then should just undergo occupation and accept it and wait until the occupier changes his mind and leaves peacefully.

Does resistance have to be violent? Not necessary, resistance can take several forms but the armed struggle is one of them.

Is violence a good thing? Violence is not a good thing, but violence in self-defence is sometimes inevitable. Especially when all possible ways to find a solution have been thwarted by the aggressor, the oppressor or the occupier. Sometimes violence is the only remaining option. Moreover, it is important to note that occupation is the real violence. Occupation is the organised, structural and recurrent violence that the Palestinian people is subjugated to on daily basis since 1948. The failure of the international community in punishing Israel and forcing it to respect international law, is leaving the Palestinian people with no other option. It is hypocritical to speak of violence as something that comes from both sides the same way and equally. It is like claiming that a woman that is being raped and fighting her rapist is using violence the same way as the rapist. This position is morally bankrupt and is nothing short than blatant support for the rapist.

Is using a truck in such an attack not a reason to consider it terrorism? This argument is again flawed. It is like saying that a woman being raped and using her nails against the rapist is not fighting in an honourable manner. Besides, if we really want the Palestinians to use classical means of warfare, maybe we should consider arming them adequately. Then they will not feel the necessity to use these unclassical methods. And how about sending UN troops to protect them? Wouldn’t that be another good alternative? But leaving them almost unarmed and at the mercy of the Israeli killing machine and then preaching to them about the methods used, is fully outrageous and shows again the bias in favour of the occupation.

Is the strategy of resistance a good strategy? This is something that the Palestinians themselves should determine. It is they who live under occupation, and they do know their circumstances. Our duty is just to be in solidarity with them. Besides, the Palestinian people and leadership, offered every possible concession since the infamous Oslo process started, in order to reach peace, and what did they get for it? More colonisation, an apartheid wall, more violence, more prison camps and abductions, and more killing. How successful was that strategy?

Should we rejoice the death of the soldiers? I personally never rejoice the death of a human being, even if it is an occupation soldier or a murderer. I wouldn’t even rejoice the deaths of Nazi soldiers if I was living in the 1940’s. However if people living in the Warsaw ghetto rejoiced the death of Nazi soldiers back then, who am I to judge? The same goes for any people living under oppression or occupation. We should not be judging the emotions of oppressed people. War is always a tragedy for all parties, and no human being in his right mind will choose war over peace. However, when people fight back against oppression, it is that they feel that they have no other options. I am sure that the Palestinian people would like nothing more than living in peace and dignity in a free country. We must show them that we stand by them, and that we support their resistance in the ways that they deem necessary within the boundaries of ethics and humanity. For my pacifist friends, Let me quote the position of Mahatma Ghandi on the matter: “…I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” This is even truer today than when he has written it. Because when you walk the road of peace only to find betrayal and deceit, the only way remaining is that of relentless struggle, by any means necessary. This is the situation in Palestine today.

I totally agree with this person. If I was in that persons situation I could understand were he is coming from. The Israelis are killing the Palestinian people day by day bit by bit and the world just gives them a slap on the hand. Y has is isreal never had any sanctions why r they getting away with genocide. Is it because God chose them to do this?!!!!!

All "victims" were soldiers,
soldiers in uniform,
soldiers in uniform and wearing their arms !!

Cheers
Raja

Reply

rik connaerdt

9/1/2017 03:22:37 pm

Shame on you. Why don't you go back to Lebanon en join your friends of Hezbollah? We don't need this kind of war-speeches over here.

Reply

SMF

9/1/2017 04:28:00 pm

Sluitend, me dunkt.

Reply

willem smith

9/1/2017 04:35:37 pm

10 x agree!
in WWII there were no "terror groups" in the netherlands, only the resistance. (and a lot of colloborators and people who saw nothing, heard nothing and kept their mouth). the whole world should attack this modern NaZionism.

Reply

Hélène Passtoors

9/1/2017 06:12:22 pm

You are right on the principle. The reference in international law is the first protocol of the Geneva Convention of 1977 by which "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes" are to be considered international conflicts." This means the rules for warfare apply in which, among others, legitimate enemy targets are the enemy/occupier's armed forces. Under the Geneva Convention and its protocols civilians are not legitimate targets. Targeting civilians is the basic definition of terrorism.
Unfortunately people here are very confused nowadays and do not see the link to the liberation struggles, including the armed resistance to the Nazi occupier and against colonial and apartheid rule. To them any asymmetric armed conflict is 'terrorism' on the part of the militarily weak party - the colonised or oppressed - while terror by standing armies is deemed to be 'legitimate' almost by definition...
However, while I agree with your point which is clearly argued, I wonder if it would not be better to have the usual 'experts' and 'analysts' making this point that they all know very well. Because it will unfortunately need quite a bit of psychology and explaining to make these issues clear to a public opinion that has been misled for very long, at least since colonial times which means it is part of deeply ingrained confusions. (Think also e.g. of the issue of Lumumba still not being an 'acceptable' figure in much of Belgian public opinion and he was not even ever involved in armed resistance...)
Therefore, I do think in the first place that you might have been more clear about this not being a specific issue for Israel and perhaps refer to the Resistance during WWII, colonial liberation struggles etc. But in fact I wonder if it would not be far better to leave such issues to others altogether (in the first place Palestinians...) in order to safeguard the space to let your voice be heard on less polarising or controversial subjects in which advances can be made.
(This is a point of strategy, not of cowardice on my part as you might know.)

Reply

Almanza

9/1/2017 06:31:48 pm

I agree with the 10 points! with some difficulty I must say because of the way we used to look at the war in the middle-east! We analyse it from a 'white' point of view! Israel is supported by our 'friends' it must be a good cause! I hoop you are going to fight against the decision of the 'Standaard' to fire you!

This article takes a much needed stance against the un-ending provocation, detention, starvation and killing of Palestinians. How can Netty say this was an 'unprovoked terrorist' attack? Total bullshit from a bully.